Id agree with Skeptical, but only in the sense of it meaning it may or may not work as intended. (I could use for example say, Im skeptical that our fee increase prevention may not have the desired effect, but doesnt mean I dont support it)... But thats not what the matter of debate is. Its not wether they are sure or not of the effectiveness etc. The issue is, Should they support using it at all in the first place? I say HELL NO! And its clear they are going to grant permission to do so!! Thats my point and thats 100% wrong. Especially when the many apparently more hunter friendly states.... Who arent having excessive and extreme deer plans in place etc. say they will not endorse this nonsense.
The Quote you posted from the pgc site says it all in its conclusion at the bottom of the page which ive quoted quite a few times now, and the rest of it hasnt much of anything to do with them supporting or not supporting usage for any purposes. The conclusion sums it up. "any Game Commission guidelines for their use will be designed to rigorously test this drug in real world circumstances."
That is exactly the opposite of saying "no we will NOT be endorsing this or granting permission for use by groups for testing or any other purpose in "real world circumstances" (real world in this instance meaning not limited to fenced areas as all testing was previously limited to) anytime in the near future period.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-19-2009 at 02:01 PM.